2008(7) Supreme 499
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., P. Sathasivam, J.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. — Appellant(s)
versus
Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 6026 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17406 of 2006)
Decided on : 01-10-2008
With
Civil Appeal No. 6027 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17832 of 2006)
Decided on : 01-10-2008
(b) Medical Education – Admission – More meritorious candidate is entitled to exercise preference first depending on the creation of vacancy in a particular college after the first round. (Para 9)
(c) Medical Education – Admission – In view of the mandatory regulations of the Medical Council of India shifting of candidates after the cut-off date is not permissible. (Para 10)
(2002) 7 SCC 258 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. MHT-CET, 2006 was conducted as per Information Brochure for medical courses in Government Colleges in Maharashtra for the academic year 2006-2007. On the basis of first round of verification of documents and filling of preference forms, final allotments were made.
2. In the second round of counseling, considering vacant seats and the preference as given by the candidates in the Preference Form, two candidates, namely, 1) Purbi Rabindra Acharya (SML No. 634) - who was admitted in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur in 30% State quota, preferred and joined B.J. Medical College, Pune and 2) Anuradha Kamalkishore Rathi (SML No. 703) who was also admitted in India Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur in 30% State quota preferred and joined Government Medical College, Nagpur. Therefore, two seats in 30% State quota were vacant. Accordingly, Deepika Mishra, SML No. 844 and Kirti Ruikar, SML No. 869 were given admission against the vacant seats. In view of the same, seats in their earlier places were vacant and two candidates were accommodated. Second round of admissions was finalized mentioning 30.8.2006 as the last date for joining.
3. On 28.8.2006, respondent No.1 herein submitted a representation to DMER by fax informing that the admissions of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are in violation of Rules depriving her to exercise her higher preference and betterment. However, no action was taken.
4. Respondent No.1 approached the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench by filing a writ petition impleading Deepika Mishra as a party respondent and the same was allowed.
Finding of the Court :
Respondent no.1 having been judged less meritorious, not entitled to the relief claimed.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J. —
Leave granted in both SLPs.
C.A. No.6026/2008 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 17406/2006
1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and final order dated 28.9.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, in Writ Petition No. 4515 of 2006, whereby the High Court allowed the said writ petition directing the State - Directorate of Medical Education and Research (hereinafter referred to as “DMER”) to consider Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal - respondent No.1 herein for giving seat in Indira Gandhi Medical College (hereinafter referred to as “IGMC”), Nagpur by shifting Kirti Shivajirao Ruikar-respondent No.2 herein to Government Medical College (hereinafter referred to as “GMC”), Yavatmal.
2. The facts, in brief, are as under:
On 31.03.2006, Information Brochure for medical courses in Government Colleges in Maharashtra for the academic year 2006-2007 was published and accordingly MHT-CET, 2006 was conducted on 21.05.2006 throughout Maharashtra. First round for verification of documents and filling of preference forms took place during 28.6.2006 to 6.7.2006 and accordingly, on the basis of the same, final allotments were made on 14.7.2006 thereby mentioning 21.7.2006 as the last date for joining. In the first round, admissions were given as under :
State Merit List No. Name of Student Name of the College Quota
963 Sneha Satyanarayan Shri Vasantrao Naik 70% Agrawal - Respondent Govt. Medical College, Regional No.1 Yavatmal
869 Kirti Shivajirao Ruikar - Shri Vasantrao Naik 30% Respondent No.2 Govt. Medical College, State Yavatmal
844 Deepika Nandkumar Govt. Medical College, 30% Mishra - Respondent No.3 Miraj State
In IGMC, Nagpur, twelve seats for women open category were vacant, and as per the Rule, 30% seats have to be filled up from State and 70% seats have to be filled up from Region i.e. four seats from State and eight seats from Region have to be filled up. On 24.8.2006, in the second round of counseling, considering vacant seats and the preference as given by the candidates in the Preference Form, two candidates, namely, 1) Purbi Rabindra Acharya (SML No. 634) - who was admitted in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur in 30% State quota, preferred and joined B.J. Medical College, Pune and 2) Anuradha Kamalkishore Rathi (SML No. 703) who was also admitted in India Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur in 30% State quota preferred and joined Government Medical College, Nagpur. Therefore, two seats in 30% State quota were vacant. Accordingly, Deepika Mishra, SML No. 844 and Kirti Ruikar, SML No. 869 were given admission against the vacant seats. In view of the same, seats in their earlier places were vacant and two candidates were accommodated. Second round of admissions was finalized on 24.8.2006 and the list was published on 25.8.2006 mentioning 30.8.2006 as the last date for joining. On 28.8.2006, respondent No.1 herein submitted a representation to DMER by fax informing that the admissions of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are in violation of Rules depriving her to exercise her higher preference and betterment. However, no action was taken. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Government, respondent No.1 approached the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench by filing a writ petition. On 15.9.2006, respondent No.1 herein filed an application impleading Deepika Mishra as a party respondent and the same was allowed. On 28.9.2006, after hearing the parties, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, by pronouncing only operative part of the judgment, thereby directing DMER to consider shifting of Kirti Ruikar from Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur to GMC, Yavatmal and shifting of Sneha Agrawal, respondent No.1 herein from GMC, Yavatmal to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur. Later on, on 12.10.2006, full judgment was delivered. In the meantime, the entire admission process was over. Challenging the judgment dated 28.9.2006, the State of Mahrashtra has fi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.